LESSONS LEARNED: Best Practices for Criminal Justice
Partnership Programs
Prepared by:
The Office of Research & Planning
NC Department of Correction
January 2002
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 3
PART I. BASIS FOR THE PROCESS EVALUATIONS........................................... 3
EFFECTIVE CORRECTIONAL INTERVENTIONS ......................................................................3
EFFECTIVE SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT SERVICES ..........................................................4
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOR INTERVENTIONS ............................................................................6
PART II. TEN LESSONS LEARNED FROM PROCESS EVALUATIONS ................. 8
ADVISORY BOARD DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................8
STAFF TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................9
PROGRAM DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................10
RESEARCH/SCIENCE-BASED PROGRAM FOUNDATION..........................................................11
CORE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES........................................................................................11
PROGRAM & SERVICE STRUCTURE ................................................................................12
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROBATION .................................................................13
ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SERVICE PROVIDERS........................................................14
DOCUMENTATION - CJPP INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (IMS) AND CASE FILES ............14
SELF-MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT............................................................................15
PART III. CONCLUSION................................................................................. 16
REFERENCES................................................................................................... 17
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................... 19
APPENDIX 1 .................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX 2 .................................................................................................... 23
APPENDIX 3 .................................................................................................... 28
3
Introduction
The Office of Research and Planning conducts process evaluations for Criminal Justice
Partnership Program Advisory Boards that request this type of assistance. In general, a
process evaluation studies the initial program design and whether the program is
operating as intended. There are four basic questions to answer in a process
evaluation: 1) the extent to which the program is reaching the appropriate target
population; 2) whether the program’s intervention(s) delivery system is consistent with
program design specifications; 3) what resources are being or have been expended for
program operation; and 4) how the program can be improved.
A process evaluation is the first step in evaluation. After a program is stabilized and a
process evaluation is conducted, an outcome evaluation would be a logical next step.
An outcome evaluation focuses on the intermediate outcomes for offenders while they
are in the program (e.g. successful completion rate, reduction in positive drug tests).
An impact evaluation examines the long-term impact on offenders, usually 24-36
months after the intervention (e.g. recidivism, employment).
Evaluations are undertaken for several reasons. For instance, an evaluation can assess
the effectiveness of new programs, judge the worth of ongoing programs, improve the
management and administration of a program, and/or satisfy accountability
requirements of the program’s stakeholders.
After completing four process evaluations, the Research and Planning staff recognized
that these programs had common strengths and challenges. These common areas can
be categorized into ten major issues to be considered during future programmatic
reviews. Partnership programs and other community-based programs can use this
document for “best practices” guidance during discussion and examination by the
Advisory Board, program staff, and other stakeholders.
Part I. Basis for the Process Evaluations
Effective Correctional Interventions
To conduct the process evaluations, the Research and Planning evaluation staff
reviewed research on effective criminal justice and correctional interventions that
reduce recidivism, then used this research to assess the linkages between program
activities and expected outcomes. The research (Andrews, 1994; Andrews & Bonta,
1994; and Gendreau, 1994) concludes that:
Official punishment without the introduction of correctional treatment services does
not work.
Providing correctional treatment services that are inconsistent with the principles of
risk, need and responsivity does not work.
4
The delivery of clinically and psychologically appropriate correctional treatment
service, under a variety of setting conditions that may be established by a criminal
sanction does work.
The delivery of appropriate correctional treatment service is dependent upon
assessments that are sensitive to risk, need and responsivity.
The researchers identified a variety of risk factors that predict the likelihood of
continuing to commit crimes; some are static, such as prior criminal record and age at
first arrest, and some are dynamic, such as antisocial attitudes and substance abuse.
The research indicates that addressing the offender’s crime producing (criminogenic)
behavior can lead to a reduction in recidivism. The intervention must be responsive to
the offender’s behavior, cognitive behavioral and social learning style and the service
provider must be able to be an effective role model (Andrews, 1989; Andrews & Bonta,
1994). Examples of promising targets for change include the following:
Changing antisocial attitudes
Changing/managing antisocial feelings
Reducing antisocial peer associations
Promoting familial affection/communication
Promoting identification/association with anti-criminal role models
Increasing self-control, self-management, and problem-solving skills,
Replacing the skills of lying, stealing, and aggression with more pro-social
alternatives
Reducing chemical dependencies and substance abuse
Shifting the density of the personal, interpersonal and other rewards and costs for
criminal and non-criminal activities in familial, academic, vocational, recreational,
and other behavioral settings, so that the non-criminal alternatives are favored
Insuring that the offender is able to recognize risky situations, and has a concrete
and well-rehearsed plan for dealing with those situations
Confronting the personal and circumstantial barriers to service.
Effective Substance Abuse Treatment Services
Since most CJP programs provide access to substance abuse treatment services to
offenders, evaluation staff researched effective substance abuse treatment. According
to a National Institutes of Health publication (Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment,
1999), research demonstrates that treatment for substance abusing offenders can have
a significant beneficial effect upon future drug use, criminal behavior, and social
functioning. The case for integrating substance abuse treatment with the criminal
justice system is compelling. The majority of offenders involved with the criminal
justice system are under community supervision. For those with known drug abuse
problems, treatment may be recommended or mandated as a condition of probation.
Research demonstrates that individuals who enter treatment under legal pressure have
outcomes as favorable as those who enter treatment voluntarily do.
5
Approaches to Treatment
Decades of research and clinical practice have led to a variety of approaches to
substance abuse treatment. Addiction therapy can include behavioral therapy (such as
counseling, cognitive therapy or psychotherapy), medications, or a combination of both.
Treatment can occur in a variety of settings, in many different forms, and for different
lengths of time. Because addiction is typically a chronic disorder characterized by
relapses, a short-term or one-time treatment often is not sufficient. For many,
treatment is a long-term process that involves multiple interventions and attempts at
abstinence. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA, 1999) identifies numerous
efficacious, scientifically based approaches to drug treatment. These approaches
include the following:
Relapse prevention – a cognitive-behavioral therapy to enhance self-control
Supportive-expressive psychotherapy – a time-limited, focused psychotherapy
Individual drug counseling – focuses directly on reducing or stopping the addict’s
illicit drug use and addresses areas of impaired functioning
Motivational enhancement therapy – a client-centered counseling approach for
initiating behavior change by helping individuals to resolve ambivalence about
engagement in treatment and stopping drug use
Behavioral therapy for adolescents – focuses on changing behavior through clear
demonstration of the desired behavior and consistent reward of incremental steps
toward achieving it
Multidimensional family therapy for adolescents – out-patient family-based drug
abuse treatment for teenagers
Day treatment with abstinence contingencies and vouchers – includes individual and
group counseling, multiple psycho-educational groups, and patient-governed
community meetings during which patients review contract goals and provide
support and encouragement to each other.
In addition to stopping substance abuse, the goal of treatment is to return the
individual to productive functioning in the family, workplace, and community. Measures
of effectiveness typically include levels of criminal behavior, family functioning,
employability, and medical condition. Overall, substance abuse treatment is as
successful as treatment of other chronic diseases. According to several studies, drug
treatment reduces drug use by 40 to 60 percent and significantly decreases criminal
activity during and after treatment. The outcome of individual treatment depends on
the extent and nature of the individual’s presenting problems, the appropriateness of
the treatment components and related services used to address those problems, and
the degree of active engagement of the individual in the treatment process.
Principles of Effective Treatment
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (1999) established the following principles of
effective treatment that should be the basis of drug treatment efforts:
6
1. No single treatment is appropriate for all individuals.
2. Treatment needs to be readily available.
3. Effective treatment attends to multiple needs of the individual, not just his or her
drug use.
4. An individual’s treatment and service(s) plan must be assessed continually and
modified as necessary to ensure that the plan meets the person’s changing
needs.
5. Remaining in treatment for an adequate period of time is critical for treatment
effectiveness.
6. Counseling (individual and/or group) and other behavioral therapies are critical
components of effective treatment of addiction.
7. Medications are an important element of treatment for many patients, especially
when combined with counseling and other behavioral therapies.
8. Addicted or drug-abusing individuals with coexisting mental disorders should
have both disorders treated in an integrated way.
9. Medical detoxification is only the first stage of addiction treatment and by itself
does little to change long-term drug use.
10. Treatment does not need to be voluntary to be effective.
11. Possible drug use during treatment must be monitored continuously.
12. Treatment programs should provide assessment for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis,
Hepatitis B and C, and other infectious diseases, and counseling to help patients
modify or change behaviors that place themselves or others at risk of infection.
13. Recovery from drug addiction can be a long-term process and frequently requires
multiple episodes of treatment.
Research has demonstrated that the criminal justice system can play an integral role in
substance abuse treatment (Taxman, 1998). The most effective treatment models
integrate criminal justice and drug treatment systems and services. Treatment and
criminal justice personnel work together on plans and implementation of screening,
targeting, testing, monitoring, supervision, as well as the systematic use of sanctions
and rewards for drug abusers in the criminal justice system. Effective correction-based
treatment for substance abusing offenders reduces the risk of both recidivism to drug-related
criminal behavior and relapse to drug use.
Cognitive Behavior Interventions
The Department of Correction has adopted Cognitive Behavioral Interventions (CBI) as
its primary offender rehabilitation tool. Many CJP programs provide CBI to offenders.
Therefore, the evaluation staff conducted a review of research on Cognitive Behavioral
Interventions. In 1987, Paul Gendreau and Robert Ross published an article entitled
Revivification of Rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980’s that analyzed and discussed
the characteristics of effective programs that reduce recidivism. According to this
research, one common characteristic exists among the highly successfully programs – a
technique, component, or approach that has an impact on the offender’s cognition or
7
thinking. Since the 1990’s offender programs that incorporate a cognitive behavioral
approach are fast becoming the core component of effective rehabilitation programs.
Theory
Cognitive behavioral theory, also known as social cognitive theory, views offenders’
maladaptive behaviors as learned. These antisocial thoughts and actions become the
central means by which they cope with life. Strong internal reinforcers such as feelings
of excitement, pleasure and power offering immediate gratification maintain the
behaviors. Cognitive behavioral programs emphasize self-management and choice and
offer concrete and relevant skills necessary for change.
Approach
Cognitive behavioral interventions (CBI) are based on the principle that thinking (an
internal behavior) controls overt actions (external behavior). Therefore, through CBI
programs (or curricula), offenders learn new skills and new ways of thinking that can
lead to changes in their behavior and actions, and ultimately affect their criminal
conduct. CBI programs use a combination of approaches to increase an offender’s
awareness of self and others. This awareness is coupled with the teaching of social
skills to assist the offender with interpersonal problems. In other words, these specific
types of intervention programs assist an offender in “restructuring” the thought process
and teach “cognitive skills” to assist in basic decision-making and problem-solving. In
general, restructuring requires therapeutic sessions with a trained psychologist or other
mental health professional while correctional staff supporting this approach with
offenders can facilitate skill-building classes.
There are a number of theories developed by researchers including Beck (1976), Ellis
(1973), Yochelson and Samenow (1976) describing cognitive structures or thinking
frameworks that lead to troubled behavior or criminal actions. These theories suggest
that how an individual thinks about an external event, not the event itself, triggers
feelings that can lead to criminal acts. The premise of a cognitive restructuring
program is that offenders hold antisocial beliefs, attitudes and mental habits that lead
them to criminal offenses. The goal of cognitive restructuring is to teach offenders how
to change their antisocial beliefs to pro-social ones with the change process focusing on
the content of their thinking. Cognitive restructuring guides offenders through a
process of consciously examining their thoughts, and then making connections between
their thoughts, related emotions and the crimes they commit.
Other researchers such as Ross and Fabiano (1985) identified social skills that offenders
need to learn to become more pro-social people. Cognitive skills teach offenders how
to modify their cognitive processes to control themselves and interact positively with
others. The goal of cognitive skills is to teach offenders to manage their own behavior
by engaging in processes that develop self-control, making them responsible for and in
charge of their actions no matter how stressful the situation. These specific skills
include problem solving, social skills training (learned behaviors that enable one to
8
interact with others in ways that elicit positive responses), anger management, and
empathy training.
Part II. Ten Lessons Learned from Process Evaluations
The following are recommendations for “best practices” for Criminal Justice Partnership
programs based on the lessons learned by Research and Planning evaluation staff
during the process evaluations. Programs can benchmark their progress by assessing
their program’s performance in the general areas identified below.
Advisory Board Development
Clear Definition of Role & Responsibilities: An active, informed Advisory Board is key
to program success. The Advisory Board has the final authority to implement the
appropriate services to meet the objectives of the local CJP program. Structurally,
the Advisory Board should include enough active members to delegate work
assignments by subcommittees that meet between regular Board meetings. In
other words, the Advisory Board subcommittees should be delegated the
responsibility of overseeing and monitoring major functions of the local CJP
program. Additionally, the Advisory Board members should reflect the necessary
partnerships in the community that the program needs to be successful and thus
provide effective services for offenders. The Board should be an advocate for the
services needed by each offender served. This is the very reason that the Advisory
Board should mirror the interests of the community, the criminal justice system, the
business sector, and the programs and services frequently needed by offenders. A
CJP program cannot be successful without the Board using its collective power to
bring resources to the program. However, Board members should be aware of
potential conflicts of interest when negotiating contractual agreements with service
providers, particularly when those providers serve on the Board.
Program Monitoring and Maintenance: The State and Local Criminal Justice
Partnership Act requires that Advisory Boards meet at least quarterly. These
meetings should be coordinated by the Advisory Board Chair and the Program
Director, and should include reviewing periodic program data generated from the
IMS by staff and a discussion of the data in terms of program performance. For
example, a quarterly board meeting should include a review of monitoring data,
budget expenditures, and subcommittee reports. One important topic for discussion
is the program’s completion rate, the underlying trends revealed by the rate, and
the steps for improvement. The Program Director should staff these meetings and
work with the Advisory Board Chair to develop an annual meeting schedule, meeting
agendas, and formats for monitoring and subcommittee reports. The County
administering the CJP program may be able to offer assistance in how to structure
9
an effective Advisory Board meeting, so that there is a sense of accomplishment at
the end of each meeting.
On-site Review of CJPP activities: Through subcommittee activities, the Advisory
Board should have frequent, on-site contact with staff and observe service delivery
on a regular basis. Reviewing on-site activities increases the level of accountability
for staff to offenders and for the Advisory Board to the program.
Strategic Planning: The Advisory Board must have a clear understanding of the
program’s vision and mission to ensure that the appropriate services are available to
offenders. Therefore, every CJPP Advisory Board should complete a short-term
strategic planning process that yields a vision statement, mission statement,
goals/objectives, strategies and tactics. The plan should also identify dates or time
frames and the responsible person or group to perform the activities necessary to
achieve the strategic goals. For example, the Board might set as an objective “to
increase referrals from the courts.” Board strategies might include sending a
delegation to meet with court officials to discuss the program, developing a video for
court officials so they are familiar with the services available at the program, or
holding an informal gathering with court officials to show appreciation for their
support of the program. The Advisory Board and program staff should utilize the
strategic plan as a roadmap to ensure that the program evolves and develops along
an ideological framework that responds to the needs of the offenders and the local
community.
Monitor Implementation of the Plan: Once a strategic plan is in place, the Advisory
Board should develop and implement a process to monitor implementation of the
plan. This process should include a review, on a routine basis, of the
goals/objectives and strategies of the strategic plan, program data, staff reports and
board reports on observation of on-site program activities. By making these types
of activities a part of the culture of the Advisory Board, the Board can ensure that
CJP programs is an effective component of a local community corrections strategy.
Staff Training & Development
Effective Interventions: Every CJP program staff person should receive specific
training to work with offenders. As corrections work is scrutinized more closely to
determine its effectiveness, the need for a highly trained, highly skilled staff grows
more apparent. Intensive training such as the Principles of Effective Interventions,
organized by the National Institute of Corrections (1999), describes what works with
offenders. Research and Planning staff and other Division of Community Corrections
staff are available to present this training to CJPP staff. This workshop concentrates
on the importance of risk, need, and responsivity in determining how a program
structures activities for offenders.
10
Assessments: The Principles of Effective Interventions workshop describes the use
of standardized and valid assessment instruments to aid staff in identifying the risk
and need levels of offenders. These issues are relevant to placing offenders in the
appropriate levels of care.
Case Planning and Case Management: Case planning, case management, and case
staffings are extremely beneficial for monitoring an offender’s progress and
managing the dynamic yet complex set of needs. The staff needs to learn how to
write case plans, including identifying steps to indicate individual offender progress.
Motivational Interviewing and Offender Engagement: Motivational interviewing and
offender engagement are key techniques and tools for staff to use to increase
offender involvement with CJP programs and services. Since offenders exhibit anti-social
behavior, they will not consistently attend and participate in programs and
services that are seemingly beneficial. Increasing compliance among offenders is an
extremely difficult task that requires diligence and consistent delivery of reward and
consequences for non-compliance. Offenders need a clear view of the expectations
(compliance) and resulting consequences (rewards and sanctions) based on their
progress.
Specific Skill Development for Service/Program Delivery (e.g., CBI, substance abuse
treatment): Each staff member who provides case management services should also
be trained or develop expertise to provide a core skill development activity offered
by the CJP program such as CBI or substance abuse treatment. These skill
development activities should address criminogenic needs and thus have impact on
future criminal behavior. Other ancillary services such as employment readiness
training and transitional housing placement are also important skill areas for staff
training and expertise.
Program Design and Implementation
Staff Involvement: In order to design and implement a program successfully, there
has to be a logical link between its purpose, its activities, and its outcomes. One
tool for assessing these relationships in a program is the Logic Model. The Logic
Model is commonly used as a framework for conducting process evaluations. To use
the Logic Model, staff and/or the Board need to set aside time, at least one-half of a
day, to talk about the following aspects of the program and the relationships
between them: goal, target population, program resources, program context,
activities/services, and intermediate and long-term outcomes. In Appendix 2 there
is a list of questions that CJPP staff and/or board members can use to discuss the
Logic model for their program, and an example of a completed Logic Model.
Program Logic Model: CJPP staff should have the “big picture” about the program’s
purpose. They should understand the logic model of the program. This means they
11
should be able to articulate the program’s planned goals and objectives, its priority
target population, the resources it has, the environment it works in, sanction and/or
program activities to address program goals and objectives, and intended
measurable outcomes. It is easy for staff to get lost in day-to-day activities and lose
sight of how their work relates to the larger purpose of the program. Staff should
plan an annual meeting to review the program’s logic model and its performance
measures.
Research/Science-Based Program Foundation
Core Services: Programs should provide services that research/science (for example,
Andrews, 1994; Andrews & Bonta, 1994; and Gendreau, 1994) indicates are
effective correctional interventions that can reduce recidivism. These programs
should represent the core programs and services that offenders are engaged in
while in the program. The core programs and services should exhibit the
characteristics of effective correctional interventions such as:
Intensive services, behavioral in nature, focused on higher risk offenders
Behaviorally oriented treatments and strategies enforced in a firm but fair
manner by qualified staff
Address criminogenic needs which means targeting crime producing behavior
Responsivity which requires case managers to match offenders, staff, and
programs based on learning and teaching styles
Disrupt criminal networks and limit anti-social (criminal) associations while
increasing pro-social associations (mentoring)
Relapse prevention strategies must be included in case planning, case staffing,
and case management activities
High levels of brokerage to ensure that case plan objectives are achievable
Effective Correctional Interventions: Research indicates that CBI and effective
substance abuse treatment when matched to the individual’s level of care are
effective correctional interventions. In addition, services that improve educational
achievement and employability can improve the offender’s likelihood of success in
the community. Services such as self-esteem building or non-directive client-centered
counseling are not as effective.
Core Program Activities
Clinical Assessments to Identify Risk, Need, & Responsivity: Every offender assigned
to a CJP program should receive a clinical assessment that determines the level of
risk for re-offending, criminogenic needs and risks, and his/her learning style.
Through this clinical assessment process, staff will be able to determine if the
offender will benefit from the program. Furthermore, the program staff will have
data and information to be used in case planning activities. A widely recognized
correctional assessment instrument is the Level of Service Inventory Revised
12
(Andrews & Bonta, 1995). The Offender Trait Inventory (OTI, Research & Planning,
1995) administered by the probation officer is an indicator of the offender’s risk of
revocation from probation. The Common Assessment developed by Treatment
Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC, 1999) measures the level of care for substance
abuse treatment and matches the offender to a treatment intervention.
Individual Case Plan Development: Once the assessment and intake are completed,
an individualized case plan should be developed. The case plan should identify
achievable goals and objectives for the individual offender. Additionally, the case
plan should be specific so that all involved (the offender, program staff, service
providers, and probation) can be held accountable through individual and collective
goals, objectives, and responsibilities. The case plan should outline an extremely
detailed path for the offender, the program staff, the service providers, and
probation to follow. It should allow for and anticipate modifications as necessary
because it must be a dynamic process.
Ongoing Case Management and Staffing to Ensure Relapse Prevention, Compliance:
Developing the case plan will lead to ongoing case staffing and case management
activities. Because case planning is a dynamic process, relapse prevention and
compliance have to be addressed immediately and repeatedly. Thus case staffing
and case management activities have to be well documented by the team and
should be discussed at frequent intervals with the entire team, including the
offender. The Advisory Board and program staff must recognize that offenders in
the CJP programs are often asked to make complete lifestyle changes in order to
comply with program rules and probation compliance. Change is a difficult process
for any person, and major lifestyle changes in particular, therefore CJP programs
must equip offenders with the necessary tools to make lasting change in their lives.
Program & Service Structure
Multi-phase Framework: Each CJP program regardless of duration should be based
on a framework of phases or stages for the offender to complete prior to discharge
from the program. The basic stages should include an orientation/intake process,
assessments, case planning, program/service participation, ongoing case
management, and discharge. The length of each phase will vary from program to
program but there should be a clear distinction between each phase and specific
documentation procedures for the case file and CJPP IMS. The Advisory Board and
program staff should establish benchmarks for each phase to ensure that offenders
are progressing based on achievement of goals and not time spent in that phase. In
other words, each phase should not have predefined beginning and end dates but
rather should examine individual progress to determine advancement to the next
phase.
13
Structure and Accountability: Local CJP programs are community-based correctional
interventions that emphasize structure and accountability in a non-residential
setting. It is imperative that each offender has an individual schedule that specifies
his/her obligations for attendance at services offered at or coordinated by the CJP
Program. This schedule should be monitored closely for compliance. It is not
acceptable for offenders to miss appointments with no consequence. Program staff,
supervising probation officers, and service providers should reinforce the behavioral
expectations established during case planning and outlined in the schedule including
program participation and probation compliance. In addition, every CJP program
needs a positive reinforcement system of rewards to include items such as personal
attention, verbal praise, food, outings, event tickets, and curfew changes. Some
rewards can be costly but others are practically free.
Roles and Responsibilities of Probation
Compliance and Graduated Sanctions for Non-Compliance: Probation officers should
ensure offender compliance with supervision requirements and program regulations.
In conjunction with CJP program staff, probation officers should implement
graduated sanctions when non-compliance occurs. These sanctions should increase
in severity by restricting freedom. Furthermore, sanctions should be specific and
linked directly to issues of non-compliance. It is important that there is a
consequence for every violation of program rules, but probation revocation should
be the last resort after all other alternatives are exhausted. Each CJP program, in
conjunction with probation officers, should develop written guidelines for compliance
and should define both rewards and sanctions for offender behavior. The CJP
Program should conduct a meeting with probation to develop the compliance
guidelines.
Active Participation in Case Planning, Case Management, and Case
Staffings: Supervising probation officers should play an active role in case planning,
case management, and case staffing activities as offenders progress through the
program. Active probation involvement in these activities reinforces their
importance and will likely increase an offender’s compliance. Additionally,
supervising officers should be included in specific skill development activities such as
CBI to reinforce their importance as well as qualitatively enhance their interaction
with the offenders. By participating in these activities, supervising officers will gain
a greater understanding and knowledge of the offender’s day-to-day circumstances
and challenges, and how best to assist the offender in making the necessary
changes to become a productive citizen.
Referrals: Local probation plays a key role in the development and sustainability of a
program. Local probation along with other members of the criminal justice system
must act as the leading advocates for the program. In addition, the Advisory Board
and program staff should look for ways to highlight the benefits of the program and
14
create opportunities to engage the larger community and garner their support.
Every local CJP program should organize an event such as an open house to ensure
that the community is informed about the program and the stakeholders solidly
support its growth and development.
On-site Supervision: Probation officers assigned to CJP programs can enforce
compliance immediately. On-site supervision will increase the supervising officer’s
ability to actively participate in case planning, case management, and case staffing.
In addition, the supervising officer will be able to participate in the skill development
activities and emphasize the importance of program participation to the offender.
Finally, on-site supervision will increase the opportunity for interagency
collaboration.
Role and Responsibilities of Service Providers
Curriculum-based Programs and Services: Programs and services offered at a local
CJP program should be curriculum-based and conducted by trained and/or certified
service providers. These curricula should be appropriate for the intended audience,
recognizing the special needs of female and youthful offenders in a correctional
setting. In addition, the service providers should have experience in dealing with
and engaging offenders in correctional programming. Basic components of program
participation should include maintaining a roster of assigned participants, tracking
attendance and participation, and reporting issues of non-compliance for case
staffing and case management purposes in a timely manner.
Active Role Regarding Compliance and Supervision: Although programs and services
may be provided on a contractual or voluntary basis, the service providers must
have in-depth understanding of the CJP program, and accept their role regarding
compliance and supervision. Service providers should receive training on the vision,
mission, goals, objectives, and history of the CJP program prior to delivering
services. Program staff should also clearly explain the expectation that service
providers will reinforce the sanctioning aspect of the program by adhering to
established policy and procedure. Finally, service providers should play an active
role in case planning, case staffing, and case management. They should provide
feedback and documentation of offender behavior as part of the decision-making
process, especially if the staff recommendation is to terminate an offender from the
program.
Documentation - CJPP Information Management System (IMS) and Case Files
Procedures to Document Case Planning, Case Management, and Case Staffing
Activities: The purpose of the CJPP IMS is to document offender activities in local
community corrections programs. The IMS is an independent database that is
accessible through the Internet but incorporates information from the Department of
15
Correction’s Offender Population Unified System (OPUS) automated database. Each
local program must make a commitment of time and energy in order to populate the
IMS with data regarding offender entries, exits, and activities while in the program.
In particular, a program should clearly and comprehensively document case
planning, case management, and case staffing activities for every offender assigned
to the program. The IMS is the primary tool for providing information to the
Department of Correction and the General Assembly regarding program activities.
Effective Use of IMS (including periodic review of reports): Once proper data entry
procedures are in place, the CJPP IMS can provide reports on individuals, programs
and services. There are three types of reports currently available from the CJPP
IMS: the Instance Status Report, the Program Summary Report, and the Monthly
Program Narratives. Program staff and the Advisory Board should use these reports
to monitor program objectives and outcomes. However, these reports are only
useful when data entry is complete, accurate and timely.
Complete Offender Case Files: Accurate and complete individual case files are critical
to case planning, case management and progress monitoring. At a minimum, case
files should include the completed screening and assessment instruments, the case
plan, progress notes, court judgements, release(s) of information, and copies of
correspondence with probation officers, other service providers, and the offender.
Self-Monitoring and Assessment
Monitoring Outcome Measures: Local CJP programs staff, in conjunction with the
Advisory Boards, needs to develop measurable objectives for program activities.
Initial measures will constitute a baseline for comparison from year to year. Self-monitoring
is an important, internal function that can keep the program focused and
can help redesign itself as needed. For example, if increasing educational
achievement is one of the program’s goals, the program may coordinate a G.E.D
class through the community college system. A measurable outcome might be that
50% of offenders improve on their G.E.D. preparation tests. However, after
completing an external evaluation, it appears that only 25% of offenders can qualify
to take the G.E.D. test after participating in the classes, the CJP program may need
to ask the community college to provide Adult Basic Education classes to offenders
in addition to G.E.D. classes. It is easy for staff and Board members to focus on
day-to-day activities and not on the outcomes of those activities. Continual program
improvement is necessary and self-monitoring is an important step in this process.
Self-Assessment: The CJP Act places the responsibility for evaluation of local
programs with local Advisory Boards. Most local Advisory Boards have neither the
funds to contract for process, outcome or impact evaluations nor the expertise to
conduct evaluations themselves. As part of the process evaluations conducted by
the Office of Research and Planning, the evaluation staff used a checklist to
16
measure the implementation of effective correctional treatment (Gendreau, Goggin,
& Smith, 1999). The checklist identifies the qualities that are associated with
successful programs and measures the extent to which these program
characteristics are present in correctional programs. It is based on extensive review
of research on effective treatment services for offenders. The researchers who
developed the checklist stress the importance of paying careful attention to how
programs are implemented. This checklist contains thirty elements identified as
necessary in implementing effective treatment programs for offenders. Four general
categories cover the content areas - Organizational Factors, Program Factors,
Program Activities, and Staffing Factors. On the checklist, each item is scored as
fully present, partially present, or not present in the design and implementation of
the program. Program staff and Advisory Board members could complete this self-assessment,
average the responses, and use it as a discussion tool for program
improvement (see Appendix 2).
Part III. Conclusion
The North Carolina General Assembly adopted the Criminal Justice Partnership Act in
1994 along with the Structured Sentencing Act. The legislative goals of the Partnership
Act include the following:
To reduce recidivism
To reduce probation violations
To reduce drug and alcohol dependencies, and
To reduce the cost of incarceration to the State and to counties.
In order to meet these goals, the Department of Correction’s Division of Community
Corrections, local CJP Programs and Advisory Boards, and the N. C. Association of
County Commissioners need to jointly embark on a course to address the effectiveness
of these programs. The Lessons Learned presented in this document is a beginning
point – a place to start to share information on best practices with CJP programs. In
conjunction with intensive technical assistance, staff training, board development and
support, and the adoption of standards, Criminal Justice Partnership Programs will be
better equipped to achieve the goals in the CJPP Act.
17
References
Andrews, D. (1989). Recidivism is predictable and can be influenced: Using risk
assessments to reduce recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research. 1(2), 11-18.
Andrews, D. (1994). An Overview of Treatment Effectiveness: Research and Clinical
Principles. Manuscript available from the NIC Academy, 1960 Industrial Circle, Suite
A, Longmont CO 80501, (800)-995-6429.
Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (1994). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Press.
Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (1995) Level of Service Inventory Revised (LSI-R). Multi-Health
Systems Inc.: North Tonawanda, NY [contact information: www.mhs.com or (800)-
456-3003].
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and emotional disorders. New York: International
Universities Press.
Ellis, A. (1973). Rational-emotive therapy. Current Psychotherapies. R. Corsini (Ed.),
Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Gendreau, P. (1994). The Principles of Effective Interventions with Offenders. Paper
prepared for the International Association of Residential and Community
Alternatives. What works in Community Corrections: A Consensus Conference.
Philadelphia, PA, November 3-6, 1993. Manuscript available from the NIC Academy,
1960 Industrial Circle, Suite A, Longmont CO 80501, (800)-995-6429.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective
correctional treatment: Program Implementation. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, (43) (2), 180-187.
Gendreau, P. & Robert, R. (1987) Revivification of Rehabilitation: Evidence from the
1980’s. Justice Quarterly, (4), 349-407.
National Institute of Corrections. (1999). Effective Interventions with Offenders: What
Works and Why (99-1002). US Department of Justice: Washington, DC. Training and
resource manual available from NIC Academy, 1960 Industrial Circle, Suite A,
Longmont CO 80501, (800)-995-6429.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (1999). Principles of Drug Addiction
Treatment: A Research-based Guide. NIH Publication No. 99-4180. Available from
NIDA at http://www.nida.hih.gov or (300)-443-1124.
18
Research & Planning (1995). The Offender Trait Inventory (OTI). An OPUS-based scale
developed by DOC and used by DCC. Available from Sandy Pearce, Research &
Planning, NC Department of Correction, 4221 MSC, Raleigh NC 27699-4221.
Ross, R. & Fabiano, E. (1985). Time to Think: A cognitive model of delinquency
prevention and offender rehabilitation. Johnson City, TN: Institute of Social Sciences
and Arts, Inc.
Taxman, F. S. (October 1998). 12 Steps to Improved Offender Outcomes. Corrections
Today. pp. 114-117, 166.
Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC). (1999). The Common Assessment.
Available from Sonya Brown, TASC State Office, NC Division of MH/DD/SAS,
Substance Abuse Section, 325 North Salisbury Street, Suite 1168, Raleigh, NC
27603, (919) 733-0566.
Yochelson, S. & Samenow, S. E. (1976). The Criminal Personality: Volume I: A Profile
for Change. New York: Jason Aronson.
19
Bibliography
(* Indicates availability from Research & Planning)
* Andrews, D. (1994). An Overview of Treatment Effectiveness: Research and Clinical
Principles. Manuscript available from the NIC Academy, 1960 Industrial Circle, Suite
A, Longmont CO 80501, (800)-995-6429.
Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (1994). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Press.
* Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (1995) Level of Service Inventory Revised (LSI-R). Multi-
Health Systems Inc.: North Tonawanda, NY [contact information: www.mhs.com or
(800)-456-3003].
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and emotional disorders. New York: International
Universities Press.
* Bonta, J. (1993). Risk-Needs Assessment and Treatment. Paper prepared for the
International Association of Residential and Community Alternatives. What works in
Community Corrections: A Consensus Conference. Philadelphia, PA, November 3-6,
1993. Manuscript available from the NIC Academy, 1960 Industrial Circle, Suite A,
Longmont CO 80501, (800)-995-6429.
Ellis, A. (1973). Rational-emotive therapy. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Current Psychotherapies.
Itasca, IL: Peacock.
* Gendreau, P. (1994). The Principles of Effective Interventions with Offenders. Paper
prepared for the International Association of Residential and Community
Alternatives. What works in Community Corrections: A Consensus Conference.
Philadelphia, PA, November 3-6, 1993. Manuscript available from the NIC Academy,
1960 Industrial Circle, Suite A, Longmont CO 80501, (800)-995-6429.
* Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective
correctional treatment: Program Implementation. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43 (2), 180-187.
Gendreau, P. & Robert, R. (1987) Revivification of Rehabilitation: Evidence from the
1980’s. Justice Quarterly, 4, 349-407.
* National Institute of Corrections. (1999). Effective Interventions with Offenders: What
Works and Why - 99-1002. US Department of Justice: Washington, DC. Training and
resource manual available from NIC Academy, 1960 Industrial Circle, Suite A,
Longmont CO 80501, (800)-995-6429.
20
* National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (1999). Principles of Drug Addiction
Treatment: A Research-based Guide. NIH Publication No. 99-4180. Available from
NIDA at http://www.nida.hih.gov or (300)-443-1124.
* Research & Planning (1995). The Offender Trait Inventory (OTI). An OPUS-based
scale developed by DOC and used by DCC. Available from Sandy Pearce, Research &
Planning, NC Department of Correction, 4221 MSC, Raleigh NC 27699-4221.
Ross, R. & Fabiano, E. (1985). Time to Think: A cognitive model of delinquency
prevention and offender rehabilitation. Johnson City, TN: Institute of Social Sciences
and Arts, Inc.
* Taxman, F. S. (October 1998). 12 Steps to Improved Offender Outcomes. Corrections
Today. pp. 114-117, 166.
* Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC). (1999). The Common Assessment.
Available from Sonya Brown, TASC State Office, NC Division of MH/DD/SAS,
Substance Abuse Section, 325 North Salisbury Street, Suite 1168, Raleigh, NC
27603, (919) 733-0566.
* Weinman, B. A., Dignam, J. T., & Wheat, B. (September/October 2001). Lessons
learned from the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Drug Abuse Treatment Programs.
Offender Substance Abuse Report, pp. 67-69, 78-80.
Yochelson, S. & Samenow, S. E. (1976). The Criminal Personality: Volume I: A Profile
for Change. New York: Jason Aronson.
21
Appendix 1
LESSONS LEARNED SUMMARY
I. Advisory Board Development
Board’s monitoring role and responsibilities are clearly defined and
understood
Board’s strategic planning role and responsibilities are clearly defined and
understood
Board is active and meets at least quarterly
Attendance at Board meeting is 75% or above
Board has subcommittees that meet regularly
Board members go on-site periodically to observe
Board composition represents community partnerships
Board members act as advocates
No Board members are service contractors
II. Staff Training and Development
Staff received training/orientation on Effective Interventions with Offenders
Staff received training on Assessment Tools and using them with offenders
Staff receive training on offender case planning and case management
Staff received training on motivational interviewing and offender engagement
Staff received training in Cognitive Behavioral Interventions (CBI)
Staff received training in delivering substance abuse services
Staff received training pertinent to delivery of other services
III. Program Design and Implementation
Program staff and Board understand the Program Logic Model tool
Program staff and Board use the Logic Model tool for self-evaluation
Program staff and Board meets annually to review Program Logic Model and
revise as needed
IV. Research/Science-Based Program Foundation
Program provides core services that research indicates are effective
interventions that can reduce recidivism
Program’s core services have the characteristics of effective correctional
interventions
V. Core Program Activities
Program uses valid assessment instruments to identify each offender’s risk,
need and responsivity
22
Program develops individual case plans which specify intermediate and long-term
achievable goals
Program conducts on-going team case staffings and case management
activities
VI. Program and Service Structure
Program has phases or stages for the offender to complete prior to discharge
(e.g. intake, assessment, case planning, program/service participation, on-going
case management, and discharge
Program emphasizes structure and offender accountability through individual
schedules
VII. Roles and Responsibilities of Probation
Program has developed, in conjunction with probation officers, written
compliance and non-compliance guidelines, including with rewards and
sanctions
Probation officers respond in a timely and appropriate manner to compliant
and non-compliant offender behavior
Probation officers actively participate in case planning, case management and
case staffings
Probation officers refer appropriate offenders regularly
Probation officers provide on-site supervision of offenders
VIII. Roles and Responsibilities of Service Providers
Service contracts require curriculum-based services
Service providers have training and expertise in services they provide
Service providers play an active role in monitoring and responding to offender
compliance and non-compliance
IX. Documentation in CJPP Information Management Systems (IMS) and
Case Files
Program has procedures in place to ensure that staff document case
planning, case management, and case staffing activities in IMS and case files
Program effectively uses IMS data and reports to monitor program activities
and progress
Offender case files are accurate, up-to date and complete
X. Self-Monitoring and Assessment
Program has a self-monitoring plan to assess progress towards measurable
objectives
Program has an annual self-evaluation plan in place
23
Appendix 2
DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR THE PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL
I. Program Goals
A. What is your program trying to accomplish?
A.1 What impact is this program trying to make on:
offenders who enter treatment?
their families?
the community?
II. Priority Target Population
A. Who is your program attempting to serve? (What are the characteristics
of your target population)?
A.1 Describe the population you are actually serving in terms of:
demographics
problems offenders enter with
family characteristics
motivation for treatment
expectations about treatment
A.2 Is your program reaching/recruiting the individuals targeted?
What recruiting problems have you faced?
What could be done/is being done to overcome these problems?
III. Inputs/Resources
A. What inputs or resources do you have to operate the program?
A.1 What are your sources and amount of funding from the following?
State funds
County funds
Federal grant funds
Foundation funds
Other funds
A.2 What are your staff resources?
How many staff do you have?
Is your staffing pattern adequate for the services you provide?
A.3 What facility rescues do you have?
What facilities do you have?
Are the facilities adequate for program services and staff needs?
IV. External Context/Environment of Program
A. What characteristics of the program environment are necessary to
support program goals?
what kind of climate is required for offenders to be successful?
- In the facility (administrative rules, policies, processes, staffing?)
24
- In the offender’s outside community after discharge?
B. How much is program success dependent on coordination with other
entities (agencies, programs, organizations) inside and outside of the
facility?
what kinds of coordination are necessary? with whom?
C. How do services provided by other agencies need to work to support the
program?
D. What problems exist with coordination of services with other agencies?
How can these problems be addressed successfully?
E. What is your relationship with county government?
E.1 How often do you have contact with county officials?
E.2 What type of support does county government offer you?
F. What is your relationship with District Court judges?
F.1 How often do you have contact with District Court judges?
F.2 What types of support do District Court judges offer you?
G. What is your relationship with Superior Court judges?
G.1 How often do you have contact with Superior Court judges?
G.2 What type of support do Superior Court judges offer you?
H. What is your relationship with other court officials?
H.1 How often do you have contact with other court officials?
H.2 What type of support do other court officials offer you?
I. What is your relationship with probation officers?
I.1 How often do you have contact with probation officers?
I.2 What type of support do probation officers offer you?
J. What other agencies do you work with regularly?
J.1. How often do you have contact with them?
J.2. What type of support do they offer you?
V. Sanction and Program Activities
A. What are the sanction aspects of your program?
A.1. What probation supervision level are offenders under?
A.2. What restrictions are offenders under while at the program?
A.3. Is there an individual schedule to structure the offender’s day?
A.4. How many hours is the offender on-site?
A.5 How is the offender’s structured schedule monitored?
A.6 Is there a system in place in monitor and reward or sanction non-compliance?
Are procedures in place to notify the probation officer
of non-compliance with the structured schedule or with program
rules?
B. What are the components of the treatment model you coordinate?
B.1 What components does your program provide?
B.2 What components are provided by other agencies?
B.3 What tasks/activities do you perform within the program in
delivering each component?
25
B.4 Which components are most important/essential? (Do some
components have interactive properties?)
B.5 How is your program designed to meet the needs of special
populations? Are any of your treatment components tailored to
meet the needs of:
women?
pregnant women?
Offenders’ children and families?
ethnic/cultural populations?
adolescents?
handicapped/disabled?
other special populations?
B.6 How does each component contribute to accomplishing your
goals/objectives?
B.7 What problems do you face in carrying out the activities necessary
to deliver the treatment components? (What can/should be done
to overcome these problems)?
B.8 What is expected of offenders in the program:
during treatment?
after they leave treatment?
B.9 What do offenders actually do during treatment? What activities
do they participate in?
B.10 How much treatment do your offenders get?
amount (length of sessions, spacing of sessions)?
frequency (how often)?
duration (over what period of time)?
stages/phases of treatment
B.11 Are offenders getting enough treatment to reach their treatment
goals? To reach your program goals?
what amount of treatment is minimally acceptable?
what changes, if any are necessary in the amount of treatment
offenders are receiving?
B.12 What changes do you expect offenders to go through during
treatment?
B.13 Can you identify stages of change for these offenders who go
through treatment successfully?
B.14 How rapidly can offenders be expected to proceed through these
stages?
B.15 How do you know that the treatment is working?
B.16 List some indicators or signals that the treatment is working.
B.17 What kinds of offenders can you be successful with (e.g.,
motivation, education)?
is this your target population?
26
VI. What are the intended intermediate and long-term outcomes of the program?
A. What are the outcomes that you can produce while offenders are in the
program?
A.1 What are the measurable outcomes that your program can produce
(stated in terms of a percentage) for the following examples:
Program completion rate
Service completion rate
Employment rate
Educational improvement rate
Reduction in substance abuse rate
Criminal activity reduction rate
Probation violation reduction rate
A.2 How do you monitor the intermediate outcomes of your program?
What type of monitoring system do you have in place?
What information do you maintain in automated records?
What information do you maintain in case files?
What types of summary reports do you produce?
How often do you review summary reports and discuss them
with your Board?
B. What are the long-term outcomes that you can produce after offenders
exit your program for 2-3 years?
B.1 What are the long-term measurable outcomes that your program
can produce (stated in terms of a percentage) for the following
examples?
Recidivism rate
Probation revocation rate
Employment rate
Reduction in substance abuse rate/
Educational improvement rate
B.2 Do you have the expertise to do a long-term evaluation of your
program?
Do you have the in-house capacity to do academic research on
long-term outcomes?
Do you have funds to hire an evaluator to do long-term
evaluation?
Can you identify other entities who do long-term evaluation for
free (e.g. Sentencing and Advisory Policy Commission, local
colleges)?
27
CRIMINAL X CCJPP PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL
Goals
(from grant)
Priority
Target
Population
(from
grant)
Identify
Inputs/
Resources to
the Program
(Identify and
Discuss)
External
Context
Program
Operates In
(Identify and
Discuss)
Sanction &
Program
Activities
(from grant
application and
update)
Intermediate and
Long-term Outcome
Measures
(from grant
application and
update)
Reduce
Recidivism (New
Crimes)
Reduce Technical
Probation
Violations
Increase
Sobriety
Obtain or
Maintain
Employment
Improve or
Complete
Education
Intermediate
Punishment
Offenders sent
by the Court or
Community
Punishment
Violators sent
by DCC or the
court
Substance
Abuser
Employment
Problems
Adequacy of
Funding:
a. State DOC
b. County
c. Federal grant
d. Foundation
e. Other
Staffing Pattern
and Adequacy
Facility Adequacy
County Gov’t
Support
District Court
Support
Superior Court
Support
DCC Referrals
Other Agency
Partner
Support:
ESC
Health Dept.
Mental Health
Dept.
Community
Colleges
Substance Abuse
Assessment, and
Individual and Group
Outpatient Counseling
And Drug Tests
GED Training
Job Readiness
Training and
Employment
Assistance
CBI Classes
Life Skills Classes
Referrals to alternative
housing
Intermediate (while
in program):
a. 50% will complete
the program
successfully
b. 45% will be
employed within 6
months of entering
program
c. 40% will complete
all assigned services
d. 50% will have no
new charges while in
program
e. 50% will not be
revoked from
probation while in
program
f. 60% will have fewer
positive drug tests
while in program
Long-term (2-3 years
after program:
a. 60% will not be re-arrested
b. 60% will be
employed
28
Appendix 3
Elements of Correctional Treatment Programs for Offenders
Name of Program: __________________________ Date: ____________________
Staff Name: __________________________
Paul Gendreau, Claire Goggin, and Paula Smith developed a checklist for implementing
effective correctional treatment programs. To what extent are these elements present
in the design and implementation of your program? On a scale of 1 to 3, indicate your
opinion, with a 3 indicating the element is fully present, 1 indicating it is not present
and 2 indicating it is partially present. Please briefly explain your response.
Ranking
Organizational Factors
1. The agency has a history of adopting new initiatives.
2. The agency puts new initiatives efficiently into place.
3. The agency’s bureaucratic structure is moderately decentralized and
allows flexible responses to troublesome issues.
4. Troublesome issues are addressed in a timely fashion.
29
5. Troublesome issues are resolved in a non-confrontational manner.
6. Few conflicts exist within the agency’s staff and management.
7. Staff turnover has been under 25% over the previous two years.
Ranking
Organizational Factors
8. The agency has biannual instruction on offender assessment and
treatment.
9. The agency is connected to consultants or educational institutions,
which can provide guidelines and training on various service delivery
issues.
Program Factors
10. Program outcomes are documented empirically through information
systems, surveys, exit interviews, focus groups, etc.
11. Program services are based on scientific evidence that the services are
effective with offenders.
30
12. The program does not overstate possible gains, such as a reduction in
recidivism, that the program might achieve.
13. Stakeholders, such as board members, county staff, program
management, and program staff, agree the program is timely, important,
and congruent with existing community and institutional values and
practices.
14. Stakeholders agree the program meets the specific needs of its clients.
Program Factors
15. The program is cost-effective; able to obtain continued funding, and
sustainable.
Ranking
Program Factors
16. The agency was free of major conflicts or problems when programs
were being initiated.
31
17. Programs are designed to maintain current staffing levels, support
professional autonomy, enhance professional credentials, and staff
efficiency.
18. Program development has been incremental, beginning with a pilot or
transitional phase, expanding services slowly and focusing at first, on
achieving intermediate goals.
Program Activities
Change agents refers to individuals that lead, operate, or facilitate
major program components.
19. Change agents have intimate knowledge of the agency and its staff.
20. Change agents have the support of senior and line staff.
21. Change agents are compatible with agency mandates and goals.
22. Change agents have professional credibility.
32
23. Change agents have a history of successful implementation efforts in
the program area.
Ranking Program Activities
24. Change agents employ central routes of persuasion, motivational
interviewing techniques, reciprocity, authority, reinforcement, modeling,
systemic problem solving, and advocacy/brokerage.
Staffing Factors
25. Staff has frequent and immediate access to the change agent(s).
26. Staff understands the program’s theoretical roots.
27. Staff has professional/technical skills regarding offender treatment.
28. Staff feels and thinks they can effectively operate the program.
29. Staff has sufficient resources, time, and feedback mechanisms.
30. Staff participates directly in program development.

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

LESSONS LEARNED: Best Practices for Criminal Justice
Partnership Programs
Prepared by:
The Office of Research & Planning
NC Department of Correction
January 2002
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 3
PART I. BASIS FOR THE PROCESS EVALUATIONS........................................... 3
EFFECTIVE CORRECTIONAL INTERVENTIONS ......................................................................3
EFFECTIVE SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT SERVICES ..........................................................4
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOR INTERVENTIONS ............................................................................6
PART II. TEN LESSONS LEARNED FROM PROCESS EVALUATIONS ................. 8
ADVISORY BOARD DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................8
STAFF TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................9
PROGRAM DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................10
RESEARCH/SCIENCE-BASED PROGRAM FOUNDATION..........................................................11
CORE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES........................................................................................11
PROGRAM & SERVICE STRUCTURE ................................................................................12
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROBATION .................................................................13
ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SERVICE PROVIDERS........................................................14
DOCUMENTATION - CJPP INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (IMS) AND CASE FILES ............14
SELF-MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT............................................................................15
PART III. CONCLUSION................................................................................. 16
REFERENCES................................................................................................... 17
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................... 19
APPENDIX 1 .................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX 2 .................................................................................................... 23
APPENDIX 3 .................................................................................................... 28
3
Introduction
The Office of Research and Planning conducts process evaluations for Criminal Justice
Partnership Program Advisory Boards that request this type of assistance. In general, a
process evaluation studies the initial program design and whether the program is
operating as intended. There are four basic questions to answer in a process
evaluation: 1) the extent to which the program is reaching the appropriate target
population; 2) whether the program’s intervention(s) delivery system is consistent with
program design specifications; 3) what resources are being or have been expended for
program operation; and 4) how the program can be improved.
A process evaluation is the first step in evaluation. After a program is stabilized and a
process evaluation is conducted, an outcome evaluation would be a logical next step.
An outcome evaluation focuses on the intermediate outcomes for offenders while they
are in the program (e.g. successful completion rate, reduction in positive drug tests).
An impact evaluation examines the long-term impact on offenders, usually 24-36
months after the intervention (e.g. recidivism, employment).
Evaluations are undertaken for several reasons. For instance, an evaluation can assess
the effectiveness of new programs, judge the worth of ongoing programs, improve the
management and administration of a program, and/or satisfy accountability
requirements of the program’s stakeholders.
After completing four process evaluations, the Research and Planning staff recognized
that these programs had common strengths and challenges. These common areas can
be categorized into ten major issues to be considered during future programmatic
reviews. Partnership programs and other community-based programs can use this
document for “best practices” guidance during discussion and examination by the
Advisory Board, program staff, and other stakeholders.
Part I. Basis for the Process Evaluations
Effective Correctional Interventions
To conduct the process evaluations, the Research and Planning evaluation staff
reviewed research on effective criminal justice and correctional interventions that
reduce recidivism, then used this research to assess the linkages between program
activities and expected outcomes. The research (Andrews, 1994; Andrews & Bonta,
1994; and Gendreau, 1994) concludes that:
Official punishment without the introduction of correctional treatment services does
not work.
Providing correctional treatment services that are inconsistent with the principles of
risk, need and responsivity does not work.
4
The delivery of clinically and psychologically appropriate correctional treatment
service, under a variety of setting conditions that may be established by a criminal
sanction does work.
The delivery of appropriate correctional treatment service is dependent upon
assessments that are sensitive to risk, need and responsivity.
The researchers identified a variety of risk factors that predict the likelihood of
continuing to commit crimes; some are static, such as prior criminal record and age at
first arrest, and some are dynamic, such as antisocial attitudes and substance abuse.
The research indicates that addressing the offender’s crime producing (criminogenic)
behavior can lead to a reduction in recidivism. The intervention must be responsive to
the offender’s behavior, cognitive behavioral and social learning style and the service
provider must be able to be an effective role model (Andrews, 1989; Andrews & Bonta,
1994). Examples of promising targets for change include the following:
Changing antisocial attitudes
Changing/managing antisocial feelings
Reducing antisocial peer associations
Promoting familial affection/communication
Promoting identification/association with anti-criminal role models
Increasing self-control, self-management, and problem-solving skills,
Replacing the skills of lying, stealing, and aggression with more pro-social
alternatives
Reducing chemical dependencies and substance abuse
Shifting the density of the personal, interpersonal and other rewards and costs for
criminal and non-criminal activities in familial, academic, vocational, recreational,
and other behavioral settings, so that the non-criminal alternatives are favored
Insuring that the offender is able to recognize risky situations, and has a concrete
and well-rehearsed plan for dealing with those situations
Confronting the personal and circumstantial barriers to service.
Effective Substance Abuse Treatment Services
Since most CJP programs provide access to substance abuse treatment services to
offenders, evaluation staff researched effective substance abuse treatment. According
to a National Institutes of Health publication (Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment,
1999), research demonstrates that treatment for substance abusing offenders can have
a significant beneficial effect upon future drug use, criminal behavior, and social
functioning. The case for integrating substance abuse treatment with the criminal
justice system is compelling. The majority of offenders involved with the criminal
justice system are under community supervision. For those with known drug abuse
problems, treatment may be recommended or mandated as a condition of probation.
Research demonstrates that individuals who enter treatment under legal pressure have
outcomes as favorable as those who enter treatment voluntarily do.
5
Approaches to Treatment
Decades of research and clinical practice have led to a variety of approaches to
substance abuse treatment. Addiction therapy can include behavioral therapy (such as
counseling, cognitive therapy or psychotherapy), medications, or a combination of both.
Treatment can occur in a variety of settings, in many different forms, and for different
lengths of time. Because addiction is typically a chronic disorder characterized by
relapses, a short-term or one-time treatment often is not sufficient. For many,
treatment is a long-term process that involves multiple interventions and attempts at
abstinence. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA, 1999) identifies numerous
efficacious, scientifically based approaches to drug treatment. These approaches
include the following:
Relapse prevention – a cognitive-behavioral therapy to enhance self-control
Supportive-expressive psychotherapy – a time-limited, focused psychotherapy
Individual drug counseling – focuses directly on reducing or stopping the addict’s
illicit drug use and addresses areas of impaired functioning
Motivational enhancement therapy – a client-centered counseling approach for
initiating behavior change by helping individuals to resolve ambivalence about
engagement in treatment and stopping drug use
Behavioral therapy for adolescents – focuses on changing behavior through clear
demonstration of the desired behavior and consistent reward of incremental steps
toward achieving it
Multidimensional family therapy for adolescents – out-patient family-based drug
abuse treatment for teenagers
Day treatment with abstinence contingencies and vouchers – includes individual and
group counseling, multiple psycho-educational groups, and patient-governed
community meetings during which patients review contract goals and provide
support and encouragement to each other.
In addition to stopping substance abuse, the goal of treatment is to return the
individual to productive functioning in the family, workplace, and community. Measures
of effectiveness typically include levels of criminal behavior, family functioning,
employability, and medical condition. Overall, substance abuse treatment is as
successful as treatment of other chronic diseases. According to several studies, drug
treatment reduces drug use by 40 to 60 percent and significantly decreases criminal
activity during and after treatment. The outcome of individual treatment depends on
the extent and nature of the individual’s presenting problems, the appropriateness of
the treatment components and related services used to address those problems, and
the degree of active engagement of the individual in the treatment process.
Principles of Effective Treatment
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (1999) established the following principles of
effective treatment that should be the basis of drug treatment efforts:
6
1. No single treatment is appropriate for all individuals.
2. Treatment needs to be readily available.
3. Effective treatment attends to multiple needs of the individual, not just his or her
drug use.
4. An individual’s treatment and service(s) plan must be assessed continually and
modified as necessary to ensure that the plan meets the person’s changing
needs.
5. Remaining in treatment for an adequate period of time is critical for treatment
effectiveness.
6. Counseling (individual and/or group) and other behavioral therapies are critical
components of effective treatment of addiction.
7. Medications are an important element of treatment for many patients, especially
when combined with counseling and other behavioral therapies.
8. Addicted or drug-abusing individuals with coexisting mental disorders should
have both disorders treated in an integrated way.
9. Medical detoxification is only the first stage of addiction treatment and by itself
does little to change long-term drug use.
10. Treatment does not need to be voluntary to be effective.
11. Possible drug use during treatment must be monitored continuously.
12. Treatment programs should provide assessment for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis,
Hepatitis B and C, and other infectious diseases, and counseling to help patients
modify or change behaviors that place themselves or others at risk of infection.
13. Recovery from drug addiction can be a long-term process and frequently requires
multiple episodes of treatment.
Research has demonstrated that the criminal justice system can play an integral role in
substance abuse treatment (Taxman, 1998). The most effective treatment models
integrate criminal justice and drug treatment systems and services. Treatment and
criminal justice personnel work together on plans and implementation of screening,
targeting, testing, monitoring, supervision, as well as the systematic use of sanctions
and rewards for drug abusers in the criminal justice system. Effective correction-based
treatment for substance abusing offenders reduces the risk of both recidivism to drug-related
criminal behavior and relapse to drug use.
Cognitive Behavior Interventions
The Department of Correction has adopted Cognitive Behavioral Interventions (CBI) as
its primary offender rehabilitation tool. Many CJP programs provide CBI to offenders.
Therefore, the evaluation staff conducted a review of research on Cognitive Behavioral
Interventions. In 1987, Paul Gendreau and Robert Ross published an article entitled
Revivification of Rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980’s that analyzed and discussed
the characteristics of effective programs that reduce recidivism. According to this
research, one common characteristic exists among the highly successfully programs – a
technique, component, or approach that has an impact on the offender’s cognition or
7
thinking. Since the 1990’s offender programs that incorporate a cognitive behavioral
approach are fast becoming the core component of effective rehabilitation programs.
Theory
Cognitive behavioral theory, also known as social cognitive theory, views offenders’
maladaptive behaviors as learned. These antisocial thoughts and actions become the
central means by which they cope with life. Strong internal reinforcers such as feelings
of excitement, pleasure and power offering immediate gratification maintain the
behaviors. Cognitive behavioral programs emphasize self-management and choice and
offer concrete and relevant skills necessary for change.
Approach
Cognitive behavioral interventions (CBI) are based on the principle that thinking (an
internal behavior) controls overt actions (external behavior). Therefore, through CBI
programs (or curricula), offenders learn new skills and new ways of thinking that can
lead to changes in their behavior and actions, and ultimately affect their criminal
conduct. CBI programs use a combination of approaches to increase an offender’s
awareness of self and others. This awareness is coupled with the teaching of social
skills to assist the offender with interpersonal problems. In other words, these specific
types of intervention programs assist an offender in “restructuring” the thought process
and teach “cognitive skills” to assist in basic decision-making and problem-solving. In
general, restructuring requires therapeutic sessions with a trained psychologist or other
mental health professional while correctional staff supporting this approach with
offenders can facilitate skill-building classes.
There are a number of theories developed by researchers including Beck (1976), Ellis
(1973), Yochelson and Samenow (1976) describing cognitive structures or thinking
frameworks that lead to troubled behavior or criminal actions. These theories suggest
that how an individual thinks about an external event, not the event itself, triggers
feelings that can lead to criminal acts. The premise of a cognitive restructuring
program is that offenders hold antisocial beliefs, attitudes and mental habits that lead
them to criminal offenses. The goal of cognitive restructuring is to teach offenders how
to change their antisocial beliefs to pro-social ones with the change process focusing on
the content of their thinking. Cognitive restructuring guides offenders through a
process of consciously examining their thoughts, and then making connections between
their thoughts, related emotions and the crimes they commit.
Other researchers such as Ross and Fabiano (1985) identified social skills that offenders
need to learn to become more pro-social people. Cognitive skills teach offenders how
to modify their cognitive processes to control themselves and interact positively with
others. The goal of cognitive skills is to teach offenders to manage their own behavior
by engaging in processes that develop self-control, making them responsible for and in
charge of their actions no matter how stressful the situation. These specific skills
include problem solving, social skills training (learned behaviors that enable one to
8
interact with others in ways that elicit positive responses), anger management, and
empathy training.
Part II. Ten Lessons Learned from Process Evaluations
The following are recommendations for “best practices” for Criminal Justice Partnership
programs based on the lessons learned by Research and Planning evaluation staff
during the process evaluations. Programs can benchmark their progress by assessing
their program’s performance in the general areas identified below.
Advisory Board Development
Clear Definition of Role & Responsibilities: An active, informed Advisory Board is key
to program success. The Advisory Board has the final authority to implement the
appropriate services to meet the objectives of the local CJP program. Structurally,
the Advisory Board should include enough active members to delegate work
assignments by subcommittees that meet between regular Board meetings. In
other words, the Advisory Board subcommittees should be delegated the
responsibility of overseeing and monitoring major functions of the local CJP
program. Additionally, the Advisory Board members should reflect the necessary
partnerships in the community that the program needs to be successful and thus
provide effective services for offenders. The Board should be an advocate for the
services needed by each offender served. This is the very reason that the Advisory
Board should mirror the interests of the community, the criminal justice system, the
business sector, and the programs and services frequently needed by offenders. A
CJP program cannot be successful without the Board using its collective power to
bring resources to the program. However, Board members should be aware of
potential conflicts of interest when negotiating contractual agreements with service
providers, particularly when those providers serve on the Board.
Program Monitoring and Maintenance: The State and Local Criminal Justice
Partnership Act requires that Advisory Boards meet at least quarterly. These
meetings should be coordinated by the Advisory Board Chair and the Program
Director, and should include reviewing periodic program data generated from the
IMS by staff and a discussion of the data in terms of program performance. For
example, a quarterly board meeting should include a review of monitoring data,
budget expenditures, and subcommittee reports. One important topic for discussion
is the program’s completion rate, the underlying trends revealed by the rate, and
the steps for improvement. The Program Director should staff these meetings and
work with the Advisory Board Chair to develop an annual meeting schedule, meeting
agendas, and formats for monitoring and subcommittee reports. The County
administering the CJP program may be able to offer assistance in how to structure
9
an effective Advisory Board meeting, so that there is a sense of accomplishment at
the end of each meeting.
On-site Review of CJPP activities: Through subcommittee activities, the Advisory
Board should have frequent, on-site contact with staff and observe service delivery
on a regular basis. Reviewing on-site activities increases the level of accountability
for staff to offenders and for the Advisory Board to the program.
Strategic Planning: The Advisory Board must have a clear understanding of the
program’s vision and mission to ensure that the appropriate services are available to
offenders. Therefore, every CJPP Advisory Board should complete a short-term
strategic planning process that yields a vision statement, mission statement,
goals/objectives, strategies and tactics. The plan should also identify dates or time
frames and the responsible person or group to perform the activities necessary to
achieve the strategic goals. For example, the Board might set as an objective “to
increase referrals from the courts.” Board strategies might include sending a
delegation to meet with court officials to discuss the program, developing a video for
court officials so they are familiar with the services available at the program, or
holding an informal gathering with court officials to show appreciation for their
support of the program. The Advisory Board and program staff should utilize the
strategic plan as a roadmap to ensure that the program evolves and develops along
an ideological framework that responds to the needs of the offenders and the local
community.
Monitor Implementation of the Plan: Once a strategic plan is in place, the Advisory
Board should develop and implement a process to monitor implementation of the
plan. This process should include a review, on a routine basis, of the
goals/objectives and strategies of the strategic plan, program data, staff reports and
board reports on observation of on-site program activities. By making these types
of activities a part of the culture of the Advisory Board, the Board can ensure that
CJP programs is an effective component of a local community corrections strategy.
Staff Training & Development
Effective Interventions: Every CJP program staff person should receive specific
training to work with offenders. As corrections work is scrutinized more closely to
determine its effectiveness, the need for a highly trained, highly skilled staff grows
more apparent. Intensive training such as the Principles of Effective Interventions,
organized by the National Institute of Corrections (1999), describes what works with
offenders. Research and Planning staff and other Division of Community Corrections
staff are available to present this training to CJPP staff. This workshop concentrates
on the importance of risk, need, and responsivity in determining how a program
structures activities for offenders.
10
Assessments: The Principles of Effective Interventions workshop describes the use
of standardized and valid assessment instruments to aid staff in identifying the risk
and need levels of offenders. These issues are relevant to placing offenders in the
appropriate levels of care.
Case Planning and Case Management: Case planning, case management, and case
staffings are extremely beneficial for monitoring an offender’s progress and
managing the dynamic yet complex set of needs. The staff needs to learn how to
write case plans, including identifying steps to indicate individual offender progress.
Motivational Interviewing and Offender Engagement: Motivational interviewing and
offender engagement are key techniques and tools for staff to use to increase
offender involvement with CJP programs and services. Since offenders exhibit anti-social
behavior, they will not consistently attend and participate in programs and
services that are seemingly beneficial. Increasing compliance among offenders is an
extremely difficult task that requires diligence and consistent delivery of reward and
consequences for non-compliance. Offenders need a clear view of the expectations
(compliance) and resulting consequences (rewards and sanctions) based on their
progress.
Specific Skill Development for Service/Program Delivery (e.g., CBI, substance abuse
treatment): Each staff member who provides case management services should also
be trained or develop expertise to provide a core skill development activity offered
by the CJP program such as CBI or substance abuse treatment. These skill
development activities should address criminogenic needs and thus have impact on
future criminal behavior. Other ancillary services such as employment readiness
training and transitional housing placement are also important skill areas for staff
training and expertise.
Program Design and Implementation
Staff Involvement: In order to design and implement a program successfully, there
has to be a logical link between its purpose, its activities, and its outcomes. One
tool for assessing these relationships in a program is the Logic Model. The Logic
Model is commonly used as a framework for conducting process evaluations. To use
the Logic Model, staff and/or the Board need to set aside time, at least one-half of a
day, to talk about the following aspects of the program and the relationships
between them: goal, target population, program resources, program context,
activities/services, and intermediate and long-term outcomes. In Appendix 2 there
is a list of questions that CJPP staff and/or board members can use to discuss the
Logic model for their program, and an example of a completed Logic Model.
Program Logic Model: CJPP staff should have the “big picture” about the program’s
purpose. They should understand the logic model of the program. This means they
11
should be able to articulate the program’s planned goals and objectives, its priority
target population, the resources it has, the environment it works in, sanction and/or
program activities to address program goals and objectives, and intended
measurable outcomes. It is easy for staff to get lost in day-to-day activities and lose
sight of how their work relates to the larger purpose of the program. Staff should
plan an annual meeting to review the program’s logic model and its performance
measures.
Research/Science-Based Program Foundation
Core Services: Programs should provide services that research/science (for example,
Andrews, 1994; Andrews & Bonta, 1994; and Gendreau, 1994) indicates are
effective correctional interventions that can reduce recidivism. These programs
should represent the core programs and services that offenders are engaged in
while in the program. The core programs and services should exhibit the
characteristics of effective correctional interventions such as:
Intensive services, behavioral in nature, focused on higher risk offenders
Behaviorally oriented treatments and strategies enforced in a firm but fair
manner by qualified staff
Address criminogenic needs which means targeting crime producing behavior
Responsivity which requires case managers to match offenders, staff, and
programs based on learning and teaching styles
Disrupt criminal networks and limit anti-social (criminal) associations while
increasing pro-social associations (mentoring)
Relapse prevention strategies must be included in case planning, case staffing,
and case management activities
High levels of brokerage to ensure that case plan objectives are achievable
Effective Correctional Interventions: Research indicates that CBI and effective
substance abuse treatment when matched to the individual’s level of care are
effective correctional interventions. In addition, services that improve educational
achievement and employability can improve the offender’s likelihood of success in
the community. Services such as self-esteem building or non-directive client-centered
counseling are not as effective.
Core Program Activities
Clinical Assessments to Identify Risk, Need, & Responsivity: Every offender assigned
to a CJP program should receive a clinical assessment that determines the level of
risk for re-offending, criminogenic needs and risks, and his/her learning style.
Through this clinical assessment process, staff will be able to determine if the
offender will benefit from the program. Furthermore, the program staff will have
data and information to be used in case planning activities. A widely recognized
correctional assessment instrument is the Level of Service Inventory Revised
12
(Andrews & Bonta, 1995). The Offender Trait Inventory (OTI, Research & Planning,
1995) administered by the probation officer is an indicator of the offender’s risk of
revocation from probation. The Common Assessment developed by Treatment
Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC, 1999) measures the level of care for substance
abuse treatment and matches the offender to a treatment intervention.
Individual Case Plan Development: Once the assessment and intake are completed,
an individualized case plan should be developed. The case plan should identify
achievable goals and objectives for the individual offender. Additionally, the case
plan should be specific so that all involved (the offender, program staff, service
providers, and probation) can be held accountable through individual and collective
goals, objectives, and responsibilities. The case plan should outline an extremely
detailed path for the offender, the program staff, the service providers, and
probation to follow. It should allow for and anticipate modifications as necessary
because it must be a dynamic process.
Ongoing Case Management and Staffing to Ensure Relapse Prevention, Compliance:
Developing the case plan will lead to ongoing case staffing and case management
activities. Because case planning is a dynamic process, relapse prevention and
compliance have to be addressed immediately and repeatedly. Thus case staffing
and case management activities have to be well documented by the team and
should be discussed at frequent intervals with the entire team, including the
offender. The Advisory Board and program staff must recognize that offenders in
the CJP programs are often asked to make complete lifestyle changes in order to
comply with program rules and probation compliance. Change is a difficult process
for any person, and major lifestyle changes in particular, therefore CJP programs
must equip offenders with the necessary tools to make lasting change in their lives.
Program & Service Structure
Multi-phase Framework: Each CJP program regardless of duration should be based
on a framework of phases or stages for the offender to complete prior to discharge
from the program. The basic stages should include an orientation/intake process,
assessments, case planning, program/service participation, ongoing case
management, and discharge. The length of each phase will vary from program to
program but there should be a clear distinction between each phase and specific
documentation procedures for the case file and CJPP IMS. The Advisory Board and
program staff should establish benchmarks for each phase to ensure that offenders
are progressing based on achievement of goals and not time spent in that phase. In
other words, each phase should not have predefined beginning and end dates but
rather should examine individual progress to determine advancement to the next
phase.
13
Structure and Accountability: Local CJP programs are community-based correctional
interventions that emphasize structure and accountability in a non-residential
setting. It is imperative that each offender has an individual schedule that specifies
his/her obligations for attendance at services offered at or coordinated by the CJP
Program. This schedule should be monitored closely for compliance. It is not
acceptable for offenders to miss appointments with no consequence. Program staff,
supervising probation officers, and service providers should reinforce the behavioral
expectations established during case planning and outlined in the schedule including
program participation and probation compliance. In addition, every CJP program
needs a positive reinforcement system of rewards to include items such as personal
attention, verbal praise, food, outings, event tickets, and curfew changes. Some
rewards can be costly but others are practically free.
Roles and Responsibilities of Probation
Compliance and Graduated Sanctions for Non-Compliance: Probation officers should
ensure offender compliance with supervision requirements and program regulations.
In conjunction with CJP program staff, probation officers should implement
graduated sanctions when non-compliance occurs. These sanctions should increase
in severity by restricting freedom. Furthermore, sanctions should be specific and
linked directly to issues of non-compliance. It is important that there is a
consequence for every violation of program rules, but probation revocation should
be the last resort after all other alternatives are exhausted. Each CJP program, in
conjunction with probation officers, should develop written guidelines for compliance
and should define both rewards and sanctions for offender behavior. The CJP
Program should conduct a meeting with probation to develop the compliance
guidelines.
Active Participation in Case Planning, Case Management, and Case
Staffings: Supervising probation officers should play an active role in case planning,
case management, and case staffing activities as offenders progress through the
program. Active probation involvement in these activities reinforces their
importance and will likely increase an offender’s compliance. Additionally,
supervising officers should be included in specific skill development activities such as
CBI to reinforce their importance as well as qualitatively enhance their interaction
with the offenders. By participating in these activities, supervising officers will gain
a greater understanding and knowledge of the offender’s day-to-day circumstances
and challenges, and how best to assist the offender in making the necessary
changes to become a productive citizen.
Referrals: Local probation plays a key role in the development and sustainability of a
program. Local probation along with other members of the criminal justice system
must act as the leading advocates for the program. In addition, the Advisory Board
and program staff should look for ways to highlight the benefits of the program and
14
create opportunities to engage the larger community and garner their support.
Every local CJP program should organize an event such as an open house to ensure
that the community is informed about the program and the stakeholders solidly
support its growth and development.
On-site Supervision: Probation officers assigned to CJP programs can enforce
compliance immediately. On-site supervision will increase the supervising officer’s
ability to actively participate in case planning, case management, and case staffing.
In addition, the supervising officer will be able to participate in the skill development
activities and emphasize the importance of program participation to the offender.
Finally, on-site supervision will increase the opportunity for interagency
collaboration.
Role and Responsibilities of Service Providers
Curriculum-based Programs and Services: Programs and services offered at a local
CJP program should be curriculum-based and conducted by trained and/or certified
service providers. These curricula should be appropriate for the intended audience,
recognizing the special needs of female and youthful offenders in a correctional
setting. In addition, the service providers should have experience in dealing with
and engaging offenders in correctional programming. Basic components of program
participation should include maintaining a roster of assigned participants, tracking
attendance and participation, and reporting issues of non-compliance for case
staffing and case management purposes in a timely manner.
Active Role Regarding Compliance and Supervision: Although programs and services
may be provided on a contractual or voluntary basis, the service providers must
have in-depth understanding of the CJP program, and accept their role regarding
compliance and supervision. Service providers should receive training on the vision,
mission, goals, objectives, and history of the CJP program prior to delivering
services. Program staff should also clearly explain the expectation that service
providers will reinforce the sanctioning aspect of the program by adhering to
established policy and procedure. Finally, service providers should play an active
role in case planning, case staffing, and case management. They should provide
feedback and documentation of offender behavior as part of the decision-making
process, especially if the staff recommendation is to terminate an offender from the
program.
Documentation - CJPP Information Management System (IMS) and Case Files
Procedures to Document Case Planning, Case Management, and Case Staffing
Activities: The purpose of the CJPP IMS is to document offender activities in local
community corrections programs. The IMS is an independent database that is
accessible through the Internet but incorporates information from the Department of
15
Correction’s Offender Population Unified System (OPUS) automated database. Each
local program must make a commitment of time and energy in order to populate the
IMS with data regarding offender entries, exits, and activities while in the program.
In particular, a program should clearly and comprehensively document case
planning, case management, and case staffing activities for every offender assigned
to the program. The IMS is the primary tool for providing information to the
Department of Correction and the General Assembly regarding program activities.
Effective Use of IMS (including periodic review of reports): Once proper data entry
procedures are in place, the CJPP IMS can provide reports on individuals, programs
and services. There are three types of reports currently available from the CJPP
IMS: the Instance Status Report, the Program Summary Report, and the Monthly
Program Narratives. Program staff and the Advisory Board should use these reports
to monitor program objectives and outcomes. However, these reports are only
useful when data entry is complete, accurate and timely.
Complete Offender Case Files: Accurate and complete individual case files are critical
to case planning, case management and progress monitoring. At a minimum, case
files should include the completed screening and assessment instruments, the case
plan, progress notes, court judgements, release(s) of information, and copies of
correspondence with probation officers, other service providers, and the offender.
Self-Monitoring and Assessment
Monitoring Outcome Measures: Local CJP programs staff, in conjunction with the
Advisory Boards, needs to develop measurable objectives for program activities.
Initial measures will constitute a baseline for comparison from year to year. Self-monitoring
is an important, internal function that can keep the program focused and
can help redesign itself as needed. For example, if increasing educational
achievement is one of the program’s goals, the program may coordinate a G.E.D
class through the community college system. A measurable outcome might be that
50% of offenders improve on their G.E.D. preparation tests. However, after
completing an external evaluation, it appears that only 25% of offenders can qualify
to take the G.E.D. test after participating in the classes, the CJP program may need
to ask the community college to provide Adult Basic Education classes to offenders
in addition to G.E.D. classes. It is easy for staff and Board members to focus on
day-to-day activities and not on the outcomes of those activities. Continual program
improvement is necessary and self-monitoring is an important step in this process.
Self-Assessment: The CJP Act places the responsibility for evaluation of local
programs with local Advisory Boards. Most local Advisory Boards have neither the
funds to contract for process, outcome or impact evaluations nor the expertise to
conduct evaluations themselves. As part of the process evaluations conducted by
the Office of Research and Planning, the evaluation staff used a checklist to
16
measure the implementation of effective correctional treatment (Gendreau, Goggin,
& Smith, 1999). The checklist identifies the qualities that are associated with
successful programs and measures the extent to which these program
characteristics are present in correctional programs. It is based on extensive review
of research on effective treatment services for offenders. The researchers who
developed the checklist stress the importance of paying careful attention to how
programs are implemented. This checklist contains thirty elements identified as
necessary in implementing effective treatment programs for offenders. Four general
categories cover the content areas - Organizational Factors, Program Factors,
Program Activities, and Staffing Factors. On the checklist, each item is scored as
fully present, partially present, or not present in the design and implementation of
the program. Program staff and Advisory Board members could complete this self-assessment,
average the responses, and use it as a discussion tool for program
improvement (see Appendix 2).
Part III. Conclusion
The North Carolina General Assembly adopted the Criminal Justice Partnership Act in
1994 along with the Structured Sentencing Act. The legislative goals of the Partnership
Act include the following:
To reduce recidivism
To reduce probation violations
To reduce drug and alcohol dependencies, and
To reduce the cost of incarceration to the State and to counties.
In order to meet these goals, the Department of Correction’s Division of Community
Corrections, local CJP Programs and Advisory Boards, and the N. C. Association of
County Commissioners need to jointly embark on a course to address the effectiveness
of these programs. The Lessons Learned presented in this document is a beginning
point – a place to start to share information on best practices with CJP programs. In
conjunction with intensive technical assistance, staff training, board development and
support, and the adoption of standards, Criminal Justice Partnership Programs will be
better equipped to achieve the goals in the CJPP Act.
17
References
Andrews, D. (1989). Recidivism is predictable and can be influenced: Using risk
assessments to reduce recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research. 1(2), 11-18.
Andrews, D. (1994). An Overview of Treatment Effectiveness: Research and Clinical
Principles. Manuscript available from the NIC Academy, 1960 Industrial Circle, Suite
A, Longmont CO 80501, (800)-995-6429.
Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (1994). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Press.
Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (1995) Level of Service Inventory Revised (LSI-R). Multi-Health
Systems Inc.: North Tonawanda, NY [contact information: www.mhs.com or (800)-
456-3003].
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and emotional disorders. New York: International
Universities Press.
Ellis, A. (1973). Rational-emotive therapy. Current Psychotherapies. R. Corsini (Ed.),
Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Gendreau, P. (1994). The Principles of Effective Interventions with Offenders. Paper
prepared for the International Association of Residential and Community
Alternatives. What works in Community Corrections: A Consensus Conference.
Philadelphia, PA, November 3-6, 1993. Manuscript available from the NIC Academy,
1960 Industrial Circle, Suite A, Longmont CO 80501, (800)-995-6429.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective
correctional treatment: Program Implementation. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, (43) (2), 180-187.
Gendreau, P. & Robert, R. (1987) Revivification of Rehabilitation: Evidence from the
1980’s. Justice Quarterly, (4), 349-407.
National Institute of Corrections. (1999). Effective Interventions with Offenders: What
Works and Why (99-1002). US Department of Justice: Washington, DC. Training and
resource manual available from NIC Academy, 1960 Industrial Circle, Suite A,
Longmont CO 80501, (800)-995-6429.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (1999). Principles of Drug Addiction
Treatment: A Research-based Guide. NIH Publication No. 99-4180. Available from
NIDA at http://www.nida.hih.gov or (300)-443-1124.
18
Research & Planning (1995). The Offender Trait Inventory (OTI). An OPUS-based scale
developed by DOC and used by DCC. Available from Sandy Pearce, Research &
Planning, NC Department of Correction, 4221 MSC, Raleigh NC 27699-4221.
Ross, R. & Fabiano, E. (1985). Time to Think: A cognitive model of delinquency
prevention and offender rehabilitation. Johnson City, TN: Institute of Social Sciences
and Arts, Inc.
Taxman, F. S. (October 1998). 12 Steps to Improved Offender Outcomes. Corrections
Today. pp. 114-117, 166.
Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC). (1999). The Common Assessment.
Available from Sonya Brown, TASC State Office, NC Division of MH/DD/SAS,
Substance Abuse Section, 325 North Salisbury Street, Suite 1168, Raleigh, NC
27603, (919) 733-0566.
Yochelson, S. & Samenow, S. E. (1976). The Criminal Personality: Volume I: A Profile
for Change. New York: Jason Aronson.
19
Bibliography
(* Indicates availability from Research & Planning)
* Andrews, D. (1994). An Overview of Treatment Effectiveness: Research and Clinical
Principles. Manuscript available from the NIC Academy, 1960 Industrial Circle, Suite
A, Longmont CO 80501, (800)-995-6429.
Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (1994). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Press.
* Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (1995) Level of Service Inventory Revised (LSI-R). Multi-
Health Systems Inc.: North Tonawanda, NY [contact information: www.mhs.com or
(800)-456-3003].
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and emotional disorders. New York: International
Universities Press.
* Bonta, J. (1993). Risk-Needs Assessment and Treatment. Paper prepared for the
International Association of Residential and Community Alternatives. What works in
Community Corrections: A Consensus Conference. Philadelphia, PA, November 3-6,
1993. Manuscript available from the NIC Academy, 1960 Industrial Circle, Suite A,
Longmont CO 80501, (800)-995-6429.
Ellis, A. (1973). Rational-emotive therapy. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Current Psychotherapies.
Itasca, IL: Peacock.
* Gendreau, P. (1994). The Principles of Effective Interventions with Offenders. Paper
prepared for the International Association of Residential and Community
Alternatives. What works in Community Corrections: A Consensus Conference.
Philadelphia, PA, November 3-6, 1993. Manuscript available from the NIC Academy,
1960 Industrial Circle, Suite A, Longmont CO 80501, (800)-995-6429.
* Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective
correctional treatment: Program Implementation. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43 (2), 180-187.
Gendreau, P. & Robert, R. (1987) Revivification of Rehabilitation: Evidence from the
1980’s. Justice Quarterly, 4, 349-407.
* National Institute of Corrections. (1999). Effective Interventions with Offenders: What
Works and Why - 99-1002. US Department of Justice: Washington, DC. Training and
resource manual available from NIC Academy, 1960 Industrial Circle, Suite A,
Longmont CO 80501, (800)-995-6429.
20
* National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (1999). Principles of Drug Addiction
Treatment: A Research-based Guide. NIH Publication No. 99-4180. Available from
NIDA at http://www.nida.hih.gov or (300)-443-1124.
* Research & Planning (1995). The Offender Trait Inventory (OTI). An OPUS-based
scale developed by DOC and used by DCC. Available from Sandy Pearce, Research &
Planning, NC Department of Correction, 4221 MSC, Raleigh NC 27699-4221.
Ross, R. & Fabiano, E. (1985). Time to Think: A cognitive model of delinquency
prevention and offender rehabilitation. Johnson City, TN: Institute of Social Sciences
and Arts, Inc.
* Taxman, F. S. (October 1998). 12 Steps to Improved Offender Outcomes. Corrections
Today. pp. 114-117, 166.
* Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC). (1999). The Common Assessment.
Available from Sonya Brown, TASC State Office, NC Division of MH/DD/SAS,
Substance Abuse Section, 325 North Salisbury Street, Suite 1168, Raleigh, NC
27603, (919) 733-0566.
* Weinman, B. A., Dignam, J. T., & Wheat, B. (September/October 2001). Lessons
learned from the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Drug Abuse Treatment Programs.
Offender Substance Abuse Report, pp. 67-69, 78-80.
Yochelson, S. & Samenow, S. E. (1976). The Criminal Personality: Volume I: A Profile
for Change. New York: Jason Aronson.
21
Appendix 1
LESSONS LEARNED SUMMARY
I. Advisory Board Development
Board’s monitoring role and responsibilities are clearly defined and
understood
Board’s strategic planning role and responsibilities are clearly defined and
understood
Board is active and meets at least quarterly
Attendance at Board meeting is 75% or above
Board has subcommittees that meet regularly
Board members go on-site periodically to observe
Board composition represents community partnerships
Board members act as advocates
No Board members are service contractors
II. Staff Training and Development
Staff received training/orientation on Effective Interventions with Offenders
Staff received training on Assessment Tools and using them with offenders
Staff receive training on offender case planning and case management
Staff received training on motivational interviewing and offender engagement
Staff received training in Cognitive Behavioral Interventions (CBI)
Staff received training in delivering substance abuse services
Staff received training pertinent to delivery of other services
III. Program Design and Implementation
Program staff and Board understand the Program Logic Model tool
Program staff and Board use the Logic Model tool for self-evaluation
Program staff and Board meets annually to review Program Logic Model and
revise as needed
IV. Research/Science-Based Program Foundation
Program provides core services that research indicates are effective
interventions that can reduce recidivism
Program’s core services have the characteristics of effective correctional
interventions
V. Core Program Activities
Program uses valid assessment instruments to identify each offender’s risk,
need and responsivity
22
Program develops individual case plans which specify intermediate and long-term
achievable goals
Program conducts on-going team case staffings and case management
activities
VI. Program and Service Structure
Program has phases or stages for the offender to complete prior to discharge
(e.g. intake, assessment, case planning, program/service participation, on-going
case management, and discharge
Program emphasizes structure and offender accountability through individual
schedules
VII. Roles and Responsibilities of Probation
Program has developed, in conjunction with probation officers, written
compliance and non-compliance guidelines, including with rewards and
sanctions
Probation officers respond in a timely and appropriate manner to compliant
and non-compliant offender behavior
Probation officers actively participate in case planning, case management and
case staffings
Probation officers refer appropriate offenders regularly
Probation officers provide on-site supervision of offenders
VIII. Roles and Responsibilities of Service Providers
Service contracts require curriculum-based services
Service providers have training and expertise in services they provide
Service providers play an active role in monitoring and responding to offender
compliance and non-compliance
IX. Documentation in CJPP Information Management Systems (IMS) and
Case Files
Program has procedures in place to ensure that staff document case
planning, case management, and case staffing activities in IMS and case files
Program effectively uses IMS data and reports to monitor program activities
and progress
Offender case files are accurate, up-to date and complete
X. Self-Monitoring and Assessment
Program has a self-monitoring plan to assess progress towards measurable
objectives
Program has an annual self-evaluation plan in place
23
Appendix 2
DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR THE PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL
I. Program Goals
A. What is your program trying to accomplish?
A.1 What impact is this program trying to make on:
offenders who enter treatment?
their families?
the community?
II. Priority Target Population
A. Who is your program attempting to serve? (What are the characteristics
of your target population)?
A.1 Describe the population you are actually serving in terms of:
demographics
problems offenders enter with
family characteristics
motivation for treatment
expectations about treatment
A.2 Is your program reaching/recruiting the individuals targeted?
What recruiting problems have you faced?
What could be done/is being done to overcome these problems?
III. Inputs/Resources
A. What inputs or resources do you have to operate the program?
A.1 What are your sources and amount of funding from the following?
State funds
County funds
Federal grant funds
Foundation funds
Other funds
A.2 What are your staff resources?
How many staff do you have?
Is your staffing pattern adequate for the services you provide?
A.3 What facility rescues do you have?
What facilities do you have?
Are the facilities adequate for program services and staff needs?
IV. External Context/Environment of Program
A. What characteristics of the program environment are necessary to
support program goals?
what kind of climate is required for offenders to be successful?
- In the facility (administrative rules, policies, processes, staffing?)
24
- In the offender’s outside community after discharge?
B. How much is program success dependent on coordination with other
entities (agencies, programs, organizations) inside and outside of the
facility?
what kinds of coordination are necessary? with whom?
C. How do services provided by other agencies need to work to support the
program?
D. What problems exist with coordination of services with other agencies?
How can these problems be addressed successfully?
E. What is your relationship with county government?
E.1 How often do you have contact with county officials?
E.2 What type of support does county government offer you?
F. What is your relationship with District Court judges?
F.1 How often do you have contact with District Court judges?
F.2 What types of support do District Court judges offer you?
G. What is your relationship with Superior Court judges?
G.1 How often do you have contact with Superior Court judges?
G.2 What type of support do Superior Court judges offer you?
H. What is your relationship with other court officials?
H.1 How often do you have contact with other court officials?
H.2 What type of support do other court officials offer you?
I. What is your relationship with probation officers?
I.1 How often do you have contact with probation officers?
I.2 What type of support do probation officers offer you?
J. What other agencies do you work with regularly?
J.1. How often do you have contact with them?
J.2. What type of support do they offer you?
V. Sanction and Program Activities
A. What are the sanction aspects of your program?
A.1. What probation supervision level are offenders under?
A.2. What restrictions are offenders under while at the program?
A.3. Is there an individual schedule to structure the offender’s day?
A.4. How many hours is the offender on-site?
A.5 How is the offender’s structured schedule monitored?
A.6 Is there a system in place in monitor and reward or sanction non-compliance?
Are procedures in place to notify the probation officer
of non-compliance with the structured schedule or with program
rules?
B. What are the components of the treatment model you coordinate?
B.1 What components does your program provide?
B.2 What components are provided by other agencies?
B.3 What tasks/activities do you perform within the program in
delivering each component?
25
B.4 Which components are most important/essential? (Do some
components have interactive properties?)
B.5 How is your program designed to meet the needs of special
populations? Are any of your treatment components tailored to
meet the needs of:
women?
pregnant women?
Offenders’ children and families?
ethnic/cultural populations?
adolescents?
handicapped/disabled?
other special populations?
B.6 How does each component contribute to accomplishing your
goals/objectives?
B.7 What problems do you face in carrying out the activities necessary
to deliver the treatment components? (What can/should be done
to overcome these problems)?
B.8 What is expected of offenders in the program:
during treatment?
after they leave treatment?
B.9 What do offenders actually do during treatment? What activities
do they participate in?
B.10 How much treatment do your offenders get?
amount (length of sessions, spacing of sessions)?
frequency (how often)?
duration (over what period of time)?
stages/phases of treatment
B.11 Are offenders getting enough treatment to reach their treatment
goals? To reach your program goals?
what amount of treatment is minimally acceptable?
what changes, if any are necessary in the amount of treatment
offenders are receiving?
B.12 What changes do you expect offenders to go through during
treatment?
B.13 Can you identify stages of change for these offenders who go
through treatment successfully?
B.14 How rapidly can offenders be expected to proceed through these
stages?
B.15 How do you know that the treatment is working?
B.16 List some indicators or signals that the treatment is working.
B.17 What kinds of offenders can you be successful with (e.g.,
motivation, education)?
is this your target population?
26
VI. What are the intended intermediate and long-term outcomes of the program?
A. What are the outcomes that you can produce while offenders are in the
program?
A.1 What are the measurable outcomes that your program can produce
(stated in terms of a percentage) for the following examples:
Program completion rate
Service completion rate
Employment rate
Educational improvement rate
Reduction in substance abuse rate
Criminal activity reduction rate
Probation violation reduction rate
A.2 How do you monitor the intermediate outcomes of your program?
What type of monitoring system do you have in place?
What information do you maintain in automated records?
What information do you maintain in case files?
What types of summary reports do you produce?
How often do you review summary reports and discuss them
with your Board?
B. What are the long-term outcomes that you can produce after offenders
exit your program for 2-3 years?
B.1 What are the long-term measurable outcomes that your program
can produce (stated in terms of a percentage) for the following
examples?
Recidivism rate
Probation revocation rate
Employment rate
Reduction in substance abuse rate/
Educational improvement rate
B.2 Do you have the expertise to do a long-term evaluation of your
program?
Do you have the in-house capacity to do academic research on
long-term outcomes?
Do you have funds to hire an evaluator to do long-term
evaluation?
Can you identify other entities who do long-term evaluation for
free (e.g. Sentencing and Advisory Policy Commission, local
colleges)?
27
CRIMINAL X CCJPP PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL
Goals
(from grant)
Priority
Target
Population
(from
grant)
Identify
Inputs/
Resources to
the Program
(Identify and
Discuss)
External
Context
Program
Operates In
(Identify and
Discuss)
Sanction &
Program
Activities
(from grant
application and
update)
Intermediate and
Long-term Outcome
Measures
(from grant
application and
update)
Reduce
Recidivism (New
Crimes)
Reduce Technical
Probation
Violations
Increase
Sobriety
Obtain or
Maintain
Employment
Improve or
Complete
Education
Intermediate
Punishment
Offenders sent
by the Court or
Community
Punishment
Violators sent
by DCC or the
court
Substance
Abuser
Employment
Problems
Adequacy of
Funding:
a. State DOC
b. County
c. Federal grant
d. Foundation
e. Other
Staffing Pattern
and Adequacy
Facility Adequacy
County Gov’t
Support
District Court
Support
Superior Court
Support
DCC Referrals
Other Agency
Partner
Support:
ESC
Health Dept.
Mental Health
Dept.
Community
Colleges
Substance Abuse
Assessment, and
Individual and Group
Outpatient Counseling
And Drug Tests
GED Training
Job Readiness
Training and
Employment
Assistance
CBI Classes
Life Skills Classes
Referrals to alternative
housing
Intermediate (while
in program):
a. 50% will complete
the program
successfully
b. 45% will be
employed within 6
months of entering
program
c. 40% will complete
all assigned services
d. 50% will have no
new charges while in
program
e. 50% will not be
revoked from
probation while in
program
f. 60% will have fewer
positive drug tests
while in program
Long-term (2-3 years
after program:
a. 60% will not be re-arrested
b. 60% will be
employed
28
Appendix 3
Elements of Correctional Treatment Programs for Offenders
Name of Program: __________________________ Date: ____________________
Staff Name: __________________________
Paul Gendreau, Claire Goggin, and Paula Smith developed a checklist for implementing
effective correctional treatment programs. To what extent are these elements present
in the design and implementation of your program? On a scale of 1 to 3, indicate your
opinion, with a 3 indicating the element is fully present, 1 indicating it is not present
and 2 indicating it is partially present. Please briefly explain your response.
Ranking
Organizational Factors
1. The agency has a history of adopting new initiatives.
2. The agency puts new initiatives efficiently into place.
3. The agency’s bureaucratic structure is moderately decentralized and
allows flexible responses to troublesome issues.
4. Troublesome issues are addressed in a timely fashion.
29
5. Troublesome issues are resolved in a non-confrontational manner.
6. Few conflicts exist within the agency’s staff and management.
7. Staff turnover has been under 25% over the previous two years.
Ranking
Organizational Factors
8. The agency has biannual instruction on offender assessment and
treatment.
9. The agency is connected to consultants or educational institutions,
which can provide guidelines and training on various service delivery
issues.
Program Factors
10. Program outcomes are documented empirically through information
systems, surveys, exit interviews, focus groups, etc.
11. Program services are based on scientific evidence that the services are
effective with offenders.
30
12. The program does not overstate possible gains, such as a reduction in
recidivism, that the program might achieve.
13. Stakeholders, such as board members, county staff, program
management, and program staff, agree the program is timely, important,
and congruent with existing community and institutional values and
practices.
14. Stakeholders agree the program meets the specific needs of its clients.
Program Factors
15. The program is cost-effective; able to obtain continued funding, and
sustainable.
Ranking
Program Factors
16. The agency was free of major conflicts or problems when programs
were being initiated.
31
17. Programs are designed to maintain current staffing levels, support
professional autonomy, enhance professional credentials, and staff
efficiency.
18. Program development has been incremental, beginning with a pilot or
transitional phase, expanding services slowly and focusing at first, on
achieving intermediate goals.
Program Activities
Change agents refers to individuals that lead, operate, or facilitate
major program components.
19. Change agents have intimate knowledge of the agency and its staff.
20. Change agents have the support of senior and line staff.
21. Change agents are compatible with agency mandates and goals.
22. Change agents have professional credibility.
32
23. Change agents have a history of successful implementation efforts in
the program area.
Ranking Program Activities
24. Change agents employ central routes of persuasion, motivational
interviewing techniques, reciprocity, authority, reinforcement, modeling,
systemic problem solving, and advocacy/brokerage.
Staffing Factors
25. Staff has frequent and immediate access to the change agent(s).
26. Staff understands the program’s theoretical roots.
27. Staff has professional/technical skills regarding offender treatment.
28. Staff feels and thinks they can effectively operate the program.
29. Staff has sufficient resources, time, and feedback mechanisms.
30. Staff participates directly in program development.